Saturday 5 January 2013

Bashing the Bishops...

I'm not so sure that I can welcome the news that the House of Bishops has lifted the ban on clerics who are in civil-partnerships becoming bishops. The reason is plain and simple - by saying that they can only do so if they publicly declare that they are celibate, the Church of England is still condemning gay lifestyles and condoning homophobia.

If the Church thought that it was going to 'win over' some liberal support by allowing this measure to pass, it has clearly misunderstood the situation.

The issue is equality, nothing more, nothing less. Women should be allowed to be bishops, because they are equal in the eyes of God. Gay people should be allowed to be bishops because they are equal in the eyes of God.

To suggest that gay people can only act as bishops if they give up the act that defines them as gay is ridiculous and completely unjust. It would be the same as if saying women could only become bishops if they underwent gender reassignment procedures, or that Black people could only become bishops if they undertook a series of cosmetic skin lightening treatment.

The Church needs to accept people as they are, or it continues to look absurd and immoral.

As for those who are so vocally against such a move by the House of Bishops on 'biblical grounds', and are suggesting that they may take up episcopal oversight from overseas bishops - I have a solution for them. I think we should pay for their flights to some of the more fundamentalist parts of the Anglican world, and see how they really like life there. These would be one way tickets of course...


  1. I like the analogy but I think it would be more like Black people could be bishops, but only if they did it to a white man's script. Which is pretty much true.

  2. I was shocked that the CofE could actually think they would please anyone with this ridiculous idea (at least it seems ridiculous to me). Gay bishops by all means, but why should they alone be celibate? And what's sinful about gay sex anyway? Sex is just sex. Love is what matters (not that the CofE polices relationships for loving sex either). And while they're about it, they should be admitting female bishops too - gay, straight, whatever. And not nosing into people's bedrooms! Jesus said NOTHING about gay sex. Sure, it's banned in Leviticus, but so are tattoos, eating prawns, wearing mixed-fibre clothes, lending money at interest and a host of other things about which the CofE doesn't give a toss. And I thought the CofE held that Jesus came to replace the old covenant along with all its taboos and legalistic strictures? So why hang on to just this one bit of it? It doesn't make the CofE attractive to "seekers" like myself. Or plausible, even. Where is the love?????